¹ Ginzel, F. K., Handbuch der mathematischen and technischen Chronologie (Leipzig, 1911-hereafter, Ginzel), ii. 526.Google Scholar

² C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, p. 274 (hereafter, Hignett).

³ F. Jacoby, FGrHist 392 F 7 and his commentary, note 62.

⁴ Georg Busolt, Griechische Geschichte ² ii. 702, n. 2.

⁵ Hdt. 8. 97. Xerxes begins building a mole over to Salamis and prepares his fleet; both are feints to permit his escape. On the historicity of the mole, see Hignett, pp. 415–17.

⁶ The procession began on 19 Boedromion (IG ii². 1078 and schol. to Aristoph. Vespae, 324), but Busolt (Gr. Gesch.² ii. 359, n. 2) explains that the ritual lasted through the night into the next day (so Plut. Cam. 19. 6 and Phoc. 28. 1).

⁷ Busolt, Gr. Gesch.² ii. 703, n. 3.

⁸ Karl Julius Beloch, Griechische Geschichte ² ii:2, 47.

⁹ Gr. Gesch.² ii. 702, n. 2; 703, n. 3; cf. Hignett, 452.

¹⁰ Ginzel, i. 551.

¹¹ See (most recently) Pritchett, W. Kendrick, Ancient Athenian Calendars on Stone (Berkeley, 1963), pp. 330–45.Google Scholar Moreover, the festival calendar did not necessarily even begin on the new moon: Pritchett, , ‘Calendars of Athens Again’, BCH 81 (1957), 273–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² 16 Mounichion, mentioned twice by Plutarch as the day of the battle (Mor. 349F and Lys. 15. 1), is only the date of its commemoration. For its rationale, see Hermann Sorge, ‘Der Mond auf den Miinzen von Athen’, Jahrbüch für Numismatik and Geldgeschichte 2 (1950–1), 7–13.Google Scholar For an entirely new explanation, see now: Badian, E. and Buckler, J., ‘The Wrong Salamis?’, Rh. Mus. 118 (1975), 226–37.Google Scholar

¹³ e.g. Schol. to Pindar ol. 3. 35 and ol. 3. 90; Bacchylides 7. 2–3.

¹⁴ Euripides, Alc. 445 f., but the interpretation of this passage is far from certain: see the commentary by A. M. Dale (Oxford, 1954), pp. 90–1. In any case, the Carnea and Olympia of 480 appear to coincide: Hdt. 7. 206.

¹⁵ Cf. Stephen Miller, G., ‘The Date of Olympic Festivals’, Ath. Mitt. 90 (1975), 228. I wish to thank Dr. Miller for kindly allowing me the use of his galley proofs.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For the possible dating of the Carnea, see the Appendix.

¹⁷ Walter Snyder, F., ‘When was the Alexandrian Calendar Established?’, AJP 64 (1943), 385–98.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ginzel, i. 200. If the scholion was written before the Egyptian calendar was fixed, then the scholiast would have later dates in mind for the Olympia. As the earlier Egyptian calendar lost one day every four years, Mesori and Thoth moved slowly backwards through the autumn, until they reachec the position at which they were fixed; cf. Beloch, Gr. Gesch.² i:2, 139. For the Julian equivalents of the months before then, see Lundsgaard, E., Aegyptischer Kalendar der Jahre 3000–200 v. Chr. (Copenhagen, 1942).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ginzel, ii 521(at 38° latitude, since it is an Elean chronicle). The ancients have varying dates for the two risings: see Lydus, Joannes, De Ostendis et Calendaria Graeca Omnia (ed. by Kurt Wachsmuth, 2nd edn., 1897), p. 348, s.v., and p. 346, s.v.Google Scholar

²⁰ Nissen, H., ‘Ueber Tempel Orientirung’, Rh.Mus. 40 (1885), 349–63;Google ScholarMommsen, A., Über die Zeit der Olympien (Leipzig, 1891); Ludwig Weniger, ‘Das Hochfest des Zeus in Olympia’, Klio 5 (1905), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ e.g. Ziehen, in RE 18.1, col. 2, points out that cannot be a historical present (as it must be if is read ), because of the tense of

²² Beloch, Gr. Gesch.² 1:2, 139–43.

²³ Ath. Mitt. 90 (1975), 217, following th caveat of Raphael Sealey, ‘The Olympic Festival of 324 B.C.’, CR 74 (1960), 186.

²⁴ For further statements on the non-use of the octaeteris, see E. J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (London, 1968), p.29, and W. Kendrick Pritchett, The Greek State at War (Berkeley, 1974: a reprint of Ancient Greek Military Practices, Berkeley, 1971), i. 117.

²⁵ Fotheringham, J. K., ‘Cleostratus’, JHS 39 (1919), 177, and ‘Cleostratus (III)’, JHS 45 (1925), 83.Google Scholar

²⁶ Originally suggested by Unger, G. F., ‘Der Olympienmonat’, Philologus 33 (1874), 227–48,Google Scholar in order to understand Polybius' dating methods, and followed by Paul Pédech, La Méthode historique de Polybe (Paris, 1964) pp. 449 ff.Google Scholar But see (most recently) Errington, R. M., ‘The Chronology of Polybius’ Histories, Books I and II', JRS 57 (1967), 96–108,Google Scholar especially 99, and (for bibliography) Walbank, F. W., Polybius (Berkeley, 1972), pp. 101 ff.Google Scholar

²⁷ Beloch, Gr. Gesch.² i:2, 139–43; for the latest defender of Nissen's chronology, see Weniger, Klio 5 (1905), 8–14; Miller, Ath. Mitt. 90 (1975), 227–31. They all in turn dispute the inferences from the evidence for the following Olympic festivals: Ol. 75 (480 B.C.), Ol. 88 (428 B.C.), Ol. 90 (420 B.C.), Ol. 106 (356 B.C.), Ol. 143 (208 B.C.), and Ol. 184 (44 B.C.). Miller, p. 230 produces another date: Ol. 114 (324 B.C.). But this is merely suggested by Sealey CR 74 (1960), 186–7), and tentatively accepted by E. Badian (JHS 81 (1961) 42–3), through the employment of Beloch's Olympic cycle.

²⁸ Evidence for the and , collected and analysed by Giovannini, A., Étude historique sur les origines du catalogue des vaisseaux (Berne, 1969), pp. 55 ff.Google Scholar

²⁹ It was only after this paper was in its final form that I gained access to Alan E. Samuel's Greek and Roman Chronology (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, vii:1 (Munich, 1972)). We appear to be in general agreement on most of the important issues surrounding the dating of Olympic festivals (pp. 191–4), but one difference should be brought out. Samuel, ignoring the argument that the scholiasts were only speaking of approximate alternation between forty-nine-Ind fifty-month periods, believes that the ontradiction between the information given by them and the theoretical models of octaeterides indicates that the scholiasts themselves were confused. Just as likely, lowever, is the possibility that they did not ntend their information to be construed as iescribing perfect octaeterides. Parenthetic-Lily, Samuel treats the information found in TT 1 and 3 as written by one scholiast. But we are here presented with two sources of widence, for the scholiast is quoting another Luthor in T1. Thus we have testimony from an Alexandrian scholiast and an Elean chronicler.

³⁰ Beloch, Gr. Gesch.² i:2, 140; cf. ii:2, 148–9.

³¹ Hignett, p. 449.

³² J. E. Powell, A Lexicon to Herodotus ² (1966), s.v., . The analyses of are also based upon Powell.

³³ W. W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, ii. 238.

³⁴ A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, iii. 702 and 705; and W. K. Pritchett and B. C. van der Waerden, ‘Thucydidean time-reckoning and Euctemon seasonal calendar’, BCH 85 (1961), 17–52.Google Scholar But the controversy concerning the specific dates continues. See (most recently) Pritchet ‘The Thucydidean Summer of 411 B.C.’, CPh 60 (1965), 259–61Google Scholar and The Choiseul Marble (Berkeley, 1970), 94–5;Google Scholar and for the opposing view: B. D. Merritt, ‘A Persian Date in Thucydides,’ CPh 61 (1966), 182–4,Google Scholar and Andrewes, A. (with A. W. Gomme and K. J. Dover), A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, iv. 18–21.Google Scholar

³⁵ Or by interpreting I9Epoc as understood by Hesiod or Hippocrates: Deman, A., ‘La Date de la bataille des Thermopyles’, RBPh 36 (1958),Google Scholar 100, and Jules Labarbe, ‘Léonidas et l'astre des tempêtes’, RBPh 37 (1959), 84–6.Google Scholar

³⁶ Apostolos Dascalakis, Problames historiques autour de la bataille des Thermopyles (Paris, 1962-hereafter, Dascalakis), p. 130.

³⁷ Jules Labarbe, ‘Un Vmoignage capital de Polyen sur la bataille de Thermopyles’, BCH 78 (1954), 1–21;Google ScholarRBPh 37 (1959), 69–91.Google Scholar

³⁸ Deman, RBPh 36 (1958), 96–102;Google Scholar Dascalakis, pp. 111–40; Hignett, pp. 450–1; Burn, A. R., Persia and the Greeks (1962), pp. 403–4;Google Scholar and Evans, J. A. S., ‘Notes on Thermopylae and Artemisium’, Historia 18 (1969), 400, n. 65.Google Scholar

³⁹ ‘Leonidas no. 3’ in RE 12, col. 2018 f.

⁴⁰ On Dexippus, see (most recently): Millar, Fergus, ‘P. Herennius Dexippus, the Greek World and the Third-Century Invasions’, JRS 59 (1969), 12–29.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Eunapius' use of in the active voice makes no sense, but in the passive the verb means precisely the rising of a star (LSJ s.v. (B)). Eunapius' misuse of the verb is not troublesome: even in antiquity, he was known for his idiosyncratic vocabulary (Photius, no. 77, 159 (54a. 13–16)), and LSJ often records his unique usage of standard vocabulary: e.g. , no. 2.

⁴² Cobet, C. G., ‘Ad Eunapii Fragmenta’, Mnemosyne 10 (1882), 26–7, believes that Eunapius was actually quoting Plutarch's statement in dating the battle of Salamis. But Eunapius' reference to the movement of a star is not found in Plutarch. Furthermore, as Eunapius in this passage is aiming his polemics directly at Dexippus, it must be supposed that these statements too are found in Dexippus. Jacoby (FGrHist. 100 F 1, 6. 25–8) records the sentences as direct quotations from Dexippus.Google Scholar

⁴³ On the value of dating Euripides' birth to the battle, see Jacoby, F., Apollodorus Chronik (Berlin, 1902), pp. 250–60.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See the discussions in Hignett, pp. 448–9, and Dascalakis, pp. 140–69.

⁴⁵ Cf. Hignett, pp. 451–3; most recently Lazenby, J. F., ‘The Strategy of the Greeks it the Opening Campaign of the Persian Wars’, Hermes 92 (1964), 265,Google Scholar and Sealey, Raphael, ‘Again the Siege of the Acropolis’, CSCA 5 (1972), 191.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Giulio Giannelli, La spedizione di Serse da Terme a Salamina (pubblicazioni della universitá cattolica del sacro cuore, serie quinta: scienze storiche, vol. v (Milan, 1924)-hereafter, Giannelli), p. 21, dates the battle of Thermopylae to 21 August and the arrival of the Persian fleet at Phalerum to 29 August. Thus he is left with a four-week hiatus in events.

⁴⁷ Sealey, R., ‘A Note on the Supposed Themistocles-Decree’, Hermes 91 (1963), 376–7,Google Scholar and more fully in CSCA 5 (1972), 183–94.Google Scholar Originally argued by Bury, J. B., ‘Aristides at Salamis’, CR 10 (1896), 414–18;Google Scholar supported by Munro, CAH v. 300, 303–4, Grundy, G. B., The Great Persian War (London, 1901), pp. 357–9, and Dascalakis, p. 147.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Nothing is to be gained from the reference in the Themistocles Decree (Meiggs and Lewis, GHI, no. 23), lines 11–12; see Sealey, CSCA 5 (1972), 184–6.

⁴⁹ Discussed by Sealey, loc. cit., 188–9.

⁵⁰ Hignett, p. 213. In fact, conservative political elements in Athens were apparently inventing stories about feats of valour performed by hoplites during the battle of Salamis: Charles Fornara, W., ‘The Hoplite Achievement at Psyttaleia’, JHS 86 (1966), 51–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ Hignett, pp. 213–5.

⁵² Cf. Hignett, p. 206, n. 4.

⁵³ Ernst Obst, Der Feldzug des Xerxes, Klio 12 (1914), Beiheft 164–6; apparently also Alb. Deman, Miltiade et Themistocle, Recherches sur l'histoire politique, diplomatique et militaired 'Athenes, 500–480 ay. J.-Chr., p. 281, cited in RBPh 36 (1958), 96 n. 1, and unavailable to me.

⁵⁴ Eugène Cavaignac, Histoire de l'antiquité (Paris, 1919), 1:2, 383–95, presents a some what different view. Herodotus states that an eclipse occurred at Salamis, in 480, when Xerxes began his march (7. 37); but no eclipse is known to have been visible there that spring. Cavaignac believes it is actually the eclipse of 2 October and Xerxes was starting out, not from Sardis, but from Therma. This gives Cavaignac dates of 16–18 October for the battle of Thermopylae and 26 October for the battle of Salamis, with the Olympia culminating on 17 September. Furthermore, Cleombrotus saw that same eclipse, not when he was considering giving chase to Xerxes (9. 10. 3), but when he was bringing aid to Leonidas. If for no other reasons, Cavaignac's thesis fails, because Herodotus explains that the Peloponnesians did not have time to reinforce Leonidas (7. 206) and if that was what Cleombrotus was intending, why does Herodotus say that he was at the Isthmus building the wall (8. 71. 1; 9. 10. 2–3)?

⁵⁵ Others have recognized that Herodotus' internal chronology is completely consistent, but their Julian dates appear to be in error: Obst and Deman (loc. cit.) and Cavaignac (loc. cit.); Macan, R. W., Herodotus, the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Books (London, 1908-hereafter, Macan), ii. 293, generally holds to Herodotus' chronology without supplying the Julian dates. Hignett, p. 211, believes that Giannelli, pp. 37–49, has provec Herodotus inconsistent in this matter; but this is not so, nor does Giannelli claim to hav done such. He merely argues that Herodotus‘ chronology is a priori impossible on military grounds: the Persian army and fleet would need more time to take their positions (pp. 40–1). Giannelli's analysis could correspond to the presently proposed scheme: his day Y1 = 27 September; Y2 and X1 = 28 September; and X2 = 29 September.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ginzel, ii. 557.

⁵⁷ The battles most likely were concluded on the same day: Hdt. 8. 15. 1; cf Hignett, pp. 379 ff. In any case, as all alternative chronologies have the battle of Artemisium occurring before that at Thermopylae, the possibility of the two engagements not being simultaneous does not affect the present discussion.

⁵⁸ Cf. Macan, i:2, 390. The Persians did not take Histiaea until well after midday (8. 23. 2). Because the visit to Thermopylae took an entire day (8. 25. 3), it must have occurred on the day after the capture of Histiaea.

⁵⁹ e.g. Hignett, p. 193, Macan, ii. 292, and Giannelli, p. 38.

⁶⁰ Xen. Anab. 1. 2. 5–4. 11; cf. Obst (loc. cit.) 132 f. See Hignett, pp. 195 f., for the standard objections.

⁶¹ Cf. Giannelli, note on pp. 42–4.

⁶² Especially by Hignett, p. 206, and Giannelli, pp. 37–49.

⁶³ On the length of the campaigning season as a consideration, see Evans, , Historia 18 (1969), 388–406.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Contra, Giannelli, p. 47. Similarly, Xerxes gave his main army two days' rest at Thermopylae before beginning the forced march.

⁶⁵ Cf. Hignett, p. 211.

⁶⁶ See Hignett, p. 448.

⁶⁷ BCH 78 (1954), 19, n. 2. For the moods of , which, in this construction, must have the same force, see Smyth, Greek Grammar (1966), § 2615; cf. 1862 a, 1863 a and b.

⁶⁸ See pp. 232–3. The present chronology has the main Persian army arriving in Athens two days before the battle and possib the vanguard up to two days before that. As the anecdote concerning the Iacchus procession does indicate that the Persians were in Athens by the time of that celebration, 19/20 Boedromion must have occurred no more than four days before the battle of Salamis.

⁶⁹ Pritchett, The Greek State at War, i. 117; Gomme, Andrewes, and Dover, A His torical Commentary on Thucydides, iv. 74; and especially Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World, p. 32.

⁷⁰ Mardonius was still in winter quarters (8. 131. 1). After consulting the oracles (8. 133–5), he dispatched Alexander to Athens (8. 136 f.; cf. 9. 7a. 1); at which point the Peloponnesians probably began work again.

⁷¹ e.g. Macan, i.2, 603, and Hignett, p. 282.